The Supreme Court to go “Postal”

The Supreme Court has been in the news recently when it struck down a law which banned “Animal Cruelty” videos. Most people were upset that the court was allowing these disgusting and very disturbing kind of videos. Watching cats be crushed with high heels is obviously the pastime of very sick people. The actual video in the court case dealt with dog fighting and was very graphic. It did not matter that this video was a documentary whose point was the prevention of the very cruelty it depicted. It was disgusting and it should be stopped.

People of good will with the best of intentions pressured lawmakers to outlaw this animal pornography. The problem was and is that once such a law is on the books its enforcement is not always in the hands of people of good will with the best of intentions, it becomes a weapon. Because the law was written so broadly, it could be used to ban any hunting video or any depiction of any animal in distress. It became the job of the local prosecutor to decide what we could and could not view. Since this is a political office and he (or she) must run for election, essentially the “voters” now decide who goes to jail. It was a badly written law.

But there was an even greater issue at stake, our first amendment right to free speech. In the USA we have a right to see and view what we wish. Any proscription of that right must be very narrowly drawn. This is why we have a court system, as an equal branch of Government. Its job is to protect that right even from people with the best of intentions.

Now there is another case scheduled to be heard by the Supremes. It involves a video game and it arose out of a California law banning the sale to minors of violent video games. “The California law slaps anyone who sells or rents a ‘violent video game' to a minor with a $1,000 fine. That was defined as a game in which the player has the option of "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" in offensive ways. Parents or guardians are still permitted to buy those games for minors”.

“Although California 's law doesn't target a specific game by name, government lawyers did single out Post 2 , which allows players to go on murderous rampages, by name. And the Federal Trade Commission has previously targeted the makers of " Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas " for having sexually-explicit content.”

As in the animal cruelty case this law could ban any action game, even ones used the US Army as a recruiting tools. It again depends on the interpretation of the local officials as to what is “killing … in an offensive way”. So what is a non offensive killing, an enemy in WWII or a drug dealer in LA? This is a ridiculous question and it will lead to ridiculous answers.

In all the previous Supreme Court rulings on obscenity that have been limitations on free speech have always been in the context of sexual speech. This kind of law would “effect a sea change in the permissible regulation of all media--including books, movies, and television programs--that contain violent content and are accessible to minors."

If this law is allowed to stand then we will be well on our way to a “nanny state” where politicians will have the right to determine what we can see and hear. Then going “Postal” will be the least of our problems.